User talk:Entropy/sandbox
Huh, my new test on that there somehow decided to change everything below the Navbar on the left into the link, but nothing on the middle of the page. Odd --Gimmethegepgun 22:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC) And the bottom too. Didn't touch the searchbox though --Gimmethegepgun 22:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC) :There was a "patch" by jedirouge to stop this happening RT | Talk 22:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC) ::Obviously not, since Pan's Sandbox still does it --Gimmethegepgun 22:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC) :::Haha, you even got the Gooogle ads as well. :) (T/ ) 22:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC) ::::Didn't know that, I have ABP so I didn't even know they were there. Also, it got the navbar and user control panel on top as well. I'm gonna try something slightly different now, I figured out I put something in slightly wrong, gonna see if it makes a difference --Gimmethegepgun 22:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC) ::::Well, that did it. Had to fix up the "leetness" apparently :/ Anyway... prwnd! --Gimmethegepgun 22:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC) ::::I'm gonna scan over the coding and figure out why it hit everything except the navbar, searchbox, GuildWiki logo, and the tab things on top --Gimmethegepgun 22:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC) :::::The Navbar is a completely separate entity from the other stuff on the page; it's part of MediaWikis code. Same for the tabs on top and maybe the logo too. All of those are basically untouchable. (T/ ) 22:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC) ::::::Well, I have no idea whether it's relevant or not, but I've found similarities and unique portions about the logo, side nav-bar, and search-box. *The GuildWiki logo does not use an tag to reference the image, the way the images on the bottom and in the article itself are. Instead, it uses *Both the side nav-bar and the search-box are specifically referenced in the , a "Jump to:" that refers to them in some obscure way, and is located before the malicious content. Nothing else is referenced in that "Jump to:" *The search-box is contained within a tag. I doubt this has to do with it not getting covered up, but more likely the Jump to Remembered that the edit-box was covered by it too, and that's also a form *The side nav-bar seems to be unique amongst everything on the page. I believe they use a different setup, because if you examine it with your mouse, the only one on the sidebar boxes that have the link span the entire width of the box is the side nav-bar. All of the other ones can only be clicked where you see them *The tabs are referenced exactly the same as the links on the sidebar, the personal bar, and the GameWikis nav-bar on top, but are clearly different in appearance from the other ones, so they are built differently internally ::::::Now you know where I've been for the past hour :P --Gimmethegepgun 23:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC) :::::::Reading Wikicode from the .js or whatever...well, thanks for the hard work, the mystery begins to make a bit more sense now. I wonder if we could get the entire interface to be covered in the code before the malicious content? At the least, all the sidebars should be put in the Jump to. (T/ ) 23:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC) ::::::::No, that wasn't from the .js. That was pure, unadulterated HTML page source code --Gimmethegepgun 23:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC) :::::::::That is...even worse. A commendable effort indeed, especially considering how, uh, whimsical a notion it was. You just gained +1 Entropy Reputation Points for: persistence! (T/ ) 23:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC) ::::::::::You know what the worst part is? Ugh... it's awful to even think about it... The worst part is... I don't even KNOW HTML! --Gimmethegepgun 23:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC) :::::::::::I only know a very little, but I can sort of guess by looking at it...Anyway, I think that HTML code is always processed before MediaWikis code, and so that is why the vandalism doesn't affect those parts of the page. It is "part of the page", not "part of GuildWiki", and so nothing you type into the Edit box can change that. (T/ ) 23:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC) ::::::::::::Designs for everything is in a separate location than the page, but everything other than the content of the article is automatically set up by the system, and if you look at the source, you'll find that every single thing on this page is present there other than the designs, which are imported from somewhere else --Gimmethegepgun 23:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC) :::::::::::::Let me put it in User:Entropy/sandbox code. (T/ ) 00:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC) :::::::::::::Haha...what a mess. Putting it in straight as HTML makes the vandalism very visible, but of course the rest of the page is illegible. I guess it only works when you put it through the MediaWikis software. (T/ ) 00:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC) :::::::::::::Damn, I guess you need to do nowiki tags on each and every line. I wish there was an easier way. Some sort of tag which said "Do text only but keep Wiki formatting intact" so that spaces and paragraphs worked. (T/ ) 00:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC) :::::::::::::Thank goodness for S&F guides! Now I can dissect it without having to hit Edit. (T/ ) 00:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC) ::::::::::::::Yay S&F! Also, I'd like to revise something I put in earlier. I remembered that the code covered up the edit-box as well, so that rules out the "search-box is a form" reason. However, since only the search-box and the side nav-bar work out of everything on the side, and both are referenced by the Jump to, it kinda strengthens that argument --Gimmethegepgun 00:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC) :::::::::::::::Entropy, what if you we used the Hi_Res icon's this way. Check your Sandbox. Image:Lann-Image_Here.jpg|right|thumb -- [[User:Lann|Lann]] 17:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::I don't want to change anything without discussion.-- [[User:Lann|Lann]] 17:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::I think what would be even better is if we took the hi-res icons and shrunk them down to the usual 19x19 or whatever size our Skill Icons are. That would make them look much better. But just sticking them on the page like that? I dunno, they don't really...belong. It seems redundant. (T/ ) 15:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)